Missing Records Don't Invalidate Previously Verified Caste Certificate; Dismissal For Not Providing Digital Certificate Arbitrary: MP HC

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla quashed Life Insurance Corporation's (LIC) dismissal order of a Development Officer for failing to submit a fresh digital caste certificate. The Court held that the mere unavailability of old records cannot invalidate a certificate that was already verified at the time of his appointment. The Court emphasized that dismissing an employee due to procedural delays in obtaining a new digital certificate was arbitrary and disproportionate. Background The petitioner, Manoj Verma, was appointed as a Development Officer at LIC on 12 September 1992. He had submitted a caste certificate which was duly verified at the time of appointment. Over his 33 years of service, Verma consistently performed well, often ranking among the top employees in his division. In 2002, a complaint was filed alleging that Verma's caste certificate was false, but this was retracted, and the caste certificate was declared genuine. Nevertheless, in 2022, LIC issued a charge sheet based on the claim that the Revenue Authority could not locate records related to his caste certificate. During the ongoing departmental proceedings, LIC dismissed Verma for not furnishing an updated digital caste certificate, as per a circular issued on 3 January 2014. Verma argued that LIC's insistence on a fresh digital certificate was unreasonable and that the unavailability of records should not undermine the legitimacy of the certificate issued over three decades ago. Arguments Senior Counsel A.K. Sethi argued that the original caste certificate issued in 1990 was valid and had been duly verified. He asserted that the Revenue Authority's failure to locate records did not imply that the certificate was false. Sethi emphasized that Verma had applied for a new caste certificate, but the delay was due to procedural backlogs. He contended that dismissing an employee for failing to provide an updated certificate after 33 years of service violated principles of natural justice and was arbitrary. Counsel for LIC, Ms. Jyoti Tiwari, maintained that the dismissal was lawful under Clause 3 of the 2014 circular, which required employees to submit updated digital caste certificates. She argued that since Verma had not complied, LIC had no option but to terminate his services. She further claimed that other employees had complied with the requirement, making Verma's non-compliance inexcusable. Court's Reasoning The court analyzed Clause 3 of the 2014 circular, which mandates immediate disciplinary action if an employee fails to furnish a valid caste certificate. It noted that the circular was intended to address instances where the authenticity of a caste certificate was questionable. However, in Verma's case, there was no finding of fraud or forgery. The Revenue Authority's report confirmed that records were simply unavailable, not that the certificate was fake. The court emphasized that the unavailability of records does not equate to a false certificate, neither does it constitute evidence of misrepresentation. The 1990 certificate had been issued by a competent authority, and at the time, no prescribed format was required. The court held that dismissing Verma solely because of LIC's demand for a digital certificate, especially when he had already applied for one, was unreasonable. The court criticized LIC for not providing any evidence of wrongdoing or initiating any action against the issuing officer for the missing records. Lastly, the court highlighted that Verma's application for a new caste certificate remained pending. Justice Shukla pointed out that terminating an employee for procedural delays by government offices, especially after decades of unblemished service, was arbitrary and disproportionate. The court allowed the petition, quashed LIC's dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of Manoj Verma. Decided on: 12-11-2024 Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:32146 (Manoj Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India)Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 296 Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sethi, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Mayank Verma Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Tiwari Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Missing Records Don't Invalidate Previously Verified Caste Certificate; Dismissal For Not Providing Digital Certificate Arbitrary: MP HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags